![Help[H]er Substack](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!qiRV!,w_80,h_80,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fec7fadee-aef6-4de3-9bf3-f8cedf5dfd37_1280x1280.png)
It’s been surprising to hear the diversity of people listening to our 2025 season podcast, “Bearing Witness.” There have been those who said they are listening that I never anticipated would be in our audience. The variety of ages, gender, position in life, place on the path of their healing (or not) enlightens as to who needs care and gives care. Still, opinions remain mixed.
There are many listeners who report how much this particular story has been helpful. Perhaps they aren’t referring to having had the exact same experience, but as we say often on the podcast, the concentrated version of this story has touch points with many other forms of abuse. So, the depth of the trauma impact and the profundity of the healing necessary starts to make more sense.
Then, similar to another podcast recently aired (and to which we gave pushback), there remains those listeners who can’t (or won’t) believe this type of abuse, this level of evil, exists. They find it far too difficult to fathom. It doesn’t fit their mentality. It flies over their comprehension. There’s no rational explanation, so they dismiss the experience as implausible.
Why is that?
At first, I received those comments of pushback as a challenge to provide more factual evidence. But I’ve changed my mind. Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of credible evidence. But I think I’ve come to realize that “facts” and “evidence” are not what’s going to advance plausibility in the discussion. Why? Because (and I should have recognized this sooner) the sheer prevalence of abuse in our families, our friendbase, in our workplaces, and in our Christian institutions clouds our perceptions of what constitutes abuse, evil, and abusive behaviors. As Rachael Denhollander said in Episode 10 on Safe to Hope, “Our sense of normalcy defines our perception of reality. Our experience of reality defines our understanding of what's normal.” Sadly, abuse has become our new “normal.” Or, maybe a better way of saying it is, “we’ve normalized abuse and abusers.” And, just as it’s impossible to rationally reason with an abuser, it is also not likely rational reasoning will persuade naysayers who are already convinced many abuses don’t exist.
So, one of the things I think we should do to effectively care for victims without creating more harm is to help others, and ourselves, identify the kind of abusive contexts (contexts in which abuse takes place) that breed a class of unbelievers of the type of evil we’ve heard on Bearing Witness. What’s the read on that atmosphere?
I’ve taken the liberty here of copying the dynamics Steven R. Tracy outlines in chapter 4 (Portrait of a Family) in his book, “Mending the Soul”1 and adapted them somewhat to this discussion. See his book for a more comprehensive and (dare I say) “biblical” treatment of the same dynamics as he exegetes the story of Tamar and Amnon. It’s worth the price of the book imo. Heck, the book is worth it, regardless.
Abuse victim’s needs are expendable
In our current Christian culture, complete with celebrity pulpits, superstar platforms, and fawning enablers, vulnerable, broken, and traumatized individual’s needs are fairly low on the priority list. When there’s an image to manage, a mission to accomplish (and I’m not talking about the “great co-mission”), nay–even a budget to finance–those considered “high need” are simply fodder to feed the hungry appetites of the powerful. The needs of broken people don’t matter (and to be clear, trauma necessitates significant need, and rightly so. See the 2025 Safe to Hope season, for example). By their very nature, our Christian institutions demonstrate a “greater good” that is at stake. It takes a lot of time, money, and effort to maintain appearances of the behemoth we’ve created. The institution necessarily takes precedence over victims.
Reality is difficult to discern
Chris Moles says this all the time, “The church should be the safest place in the world.” And yet, it’s not. But who of us walks into a church building and thinks, “Oh, there’s a really good chance I’ll be abused if I attend here.” Churches, bodies of believers, fellowship of brothers and sisters, all denote places of care, love, and safety. So the cognitive dissonance when something unsafe happens is crushing to navigate. Victims walk away asking, “what just happened?” Or, “did I think what just happened actually happen? Or, “am I insane?” Default mode is to take the blame. Or worse. Believe they themselves are those living in unreality. What’s real, and what’s not, gets fuzzy.
The victim is “responsible”
I’m just going to quote Steven Tracy here. He nailed it imo. “In abusive [contexts], the victim is made responsible for solving needs–even evil needs–they didn’t create and could never legitimately satisfy.” This circular way of “reasoning” that happens in abusive systems post reports of abuse is crazy making. The abuser and the system created the need. The abuser and the system sought out the “need-meeter,” The abuser and the system exploited the need-meeter’s vulnerabilities, position, availability, passions, gifting, heart, empathy (the list is endless), and then when said victim tells someone, they become the problem. Their advocates share that load. Blame lands on everyone EXCEPT the abuser and the system.
Appearance is deceptive
This should be a no-brainer but it happens over and over. The guy who is accused is almost always a “nice guy.” One that would never “do that.” The reality is that nice families sometimes produce perpetrators of harm. Steven Tracy writes that King David’s family dynamics are helpful to remember. On the outside the royals were celebrated, while a look at the inside of the family home revealed many different stories. Since when are we capable of reading a book by its cover?
Truth is ignored
And this is big! Institutions that have gaslit members with false doctrines for decades condition us to totally miss the truth even when it stares us in the face. Who and what is a woman? Do we interpret her humanity from Genesis 3:16 and a few random passages in Paul’s letters? Or do we build her being from the image of God forward? This is just one example of faulty doctrine, but it impacts the Christian church significantly. What we believe about woman will inform every response we have to her claims (if she’s reporting abuse especially), every assumption about intent and motivation, and every action we subsequently take. When we cherry pick a passage from the fall and then jump to an apostle’s letters to the burgeoning new church to define women, we completely miss God’s intent for creating her in His image. If this truth in particular is ignored, all other “truth” will be mistaken.
Force
In some ways this may feel like a small word. Of course, abuse involves force. What’s missing in that literal interpretation is the implication of the act (by “good and necessary consequence”). To use force against someone is to create powerlessness in them. Conditioned powerlessness in one relationship does not disappear in the context of another. It’s an all encompassing position. Suppression of a human spirit by any perpetrator will carry over into every other avenue of life. Especially other relationships with those in a position of power. For example, if a woman has no agency in her own home, if she’s taught that her husband is the final decision maker because she’s easily deceived, when she interacts with similar “authority” she will be conditioned to believe the same thing. Even if she attends a church that’s gender affirming, she’s been conditioned to believe she’s the weaker vessel, her gut and intuition can’t be trusted, and her goal is to usurp authority. This is a dangerous place to be, because when she mistrusts her conscience she is ripe for missing when an authority figure is misusing and abusing his power and control. She’s been trained to submit in everything.
No healthy communication
In the context of an abusive culture, good communication is (necessarily) inconsistent. Evil and lying go hand in hand. What is lied about may surprise you. There may be truth spoken about the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but lies about the finances. In Bearing Witness, Carya’s abusers taught beautiful, theological truths, while simultaneously serving the Father of Lies and seriously harming God’s children. Or, as mentioned above, there may be lies about who a woman is theologically. Or the alleged perpetrators (or their flying monkey’s) will lie about you, the caregiver or whistleblower. Why would we expect to find truth to consistently come out of an abusive context? At a minimum we have the responsibility to learn the truth, patterns of abuse particularly and God’s truth especially, to be able to recognize lies.
Victim’s response is futile
Who suffers in abuse? The abuse itself is a form of significant suffering, that’s the first thing. Then not being believed–or worse, dismissed and blamed–is a form of suffering. Lack of response once abuse is reported is to endure suffering. Betrayal can happen when people choose sides (and any other number of ways). This is also a suffering. Victims have been known to be arrested and charged with falsely reporting crimes. They’ve been victims of their own tortured minds and bodies, sometimes to the extent that they’ve committed suicide. What are some ways perpetrators suffer?
The comparisons are non-existent.
Abusive systems are emotionally unstable
Communication in abusive systems is not the only place of instability. Emotions are also amiss; unstable and unregulated. Inappropriate physical touch is labeled “love.” Birth order denotes a position of intimacy (as in the oldest daughter “filling in” where the mother is “lacking,” or the youngest child is entitled simply because they are “the baby”). Fear is used as a weapon for harm (beatings), and for “good” (to discourage bad behavior). Anger exhibited by a perpetrator–whether acted upon or not–sets everyone into motion; to prevent, to respond, to negotiate.
Isolation/lack of intimacy
Abuse is isolating. As a result, there’s little chance of intimacy. Those who exist within abusive systems tend to think and act as though they alone experience this hardship.2 Often, that’s what they’re told. People in these situations might pull away from social opportunities, avoid conversations that might reveal their reality, think they need to “protect” the system’s reputation, may even want to protect the abuser. Shame causes us to hide, and abuse is certainly shame inducing.
Strict code of silence
Shame can also cause us to hide in our abusive systems in silence. Or perhaps there’s risk involved in revealing what’s happening. Maybe a perpetrator has threatened to harm, or cause embarrassment, or ruin someone. Tracy writes, “The conspiracy of silence is one of the most characteristic dynamics of abusive families, and is documented in much of the literature on abuse.” Silence is used to perpetuate control. Silence hides sin and evil. Silence suppresses the human spirit. Silencing dehumanizes as it paralyzes the primary organ God created for His children to use in order to praise Him.
Denial and/or distortion of healthy emotions
Empathy, according to one misguided author, is, “The greatest rhetorical tool of manipulation in the 21st century.” In fact, he calls it a sin. Dani Treweek, in her Substack review of “The Sin of Empathy,” writes that the author is “primarily concerned about a particular kind of sinful inclination (i.e. being emotionally swept away from reason and truth) which he sees as inherent to a particular group of people (i.e. women).” Women have historically been accused of being overly emotional. Women (including teenagers and little girls) are also the largest group of people who suffer from abuse. What better way to control a narrative when a woman reports they’ve been abused than to discredit her (typically appropriate) emotions?
The wrong people are protected
I wish I could explain this but I can’t. Tracy mentions the Catholic church as an example. “In God’s House” by Ray Mouton about the initial revelations of clergy sexual abuse is also a super helpful read. Or listen to the iHeart podcast “The Turning,” Season 1 for an excellent treatment of the patterns that flow throughout just about every abusive system and, in this case, even within Mother Teresa’s Missions of Charity. And lest any of my evangelical brothers and sisters dismiss these examples because the Protestant church is “reformed,” let me assure you–not much has really changed since 1517. Certainly not the patterns of responding to abuse which are proven over and over to be universal to all Christian institutions historically AND today.
Enmeshed relationships leaving victim with nothing as they try to escape
This is just another way to hold all the power, discourage dissent, and crush those who dare to defy. This could look like social capital within a denomination, employment, business relationships with other congregants, private school or homeschool connections, etc. Suddenly a victim finds themselves with no family, no friends, no paycheck, and no social capital to get back on their feet. In some cases even your family doctor or dentist may have been a church connection at one point.
As a young adult emerging from my family of origin, I began a trek of understanding more fully what healthy families look and act like. Suddenly, my own experience didn’t seem so great. At the time, the only phrase I’d heard that might describe it was “dysfunctional.” Today, we have more language to explain those experiences. And, in looking back at my childhood experiences from this vantage point, I can now more easily identify them. Our most recent, influential generations (mine on the cusp between Boomers and Gen X) brought those “learned and practiced dysfunctional life lessons” into every corner of life we touch. Generations of Christian “architects” replicated their family of origin dynamics into not only our own family homes, but also every other relationship we’ve established. When I say we’ve normalized abuse and abusers it’s because it’s what we knew. And we knew it intuitively. Therefore, reversal of the climate I’ve just described above must begin with recognition, then move toward the opposite in mind, emotion, and action. It takes concerted thinking and effort. It takes believing. Then, and only then, will a culture that receives horrific, evil, satanic, and sadistic reports of abuses to God’s image bearers will we respond well. Belief must come first.3
Tracy, Steven R. 2005. Mending the Soul: Understanding and Healing Abuse. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.
That isn’t to place blame, it is to recognize the extent of the isolation.
I have friends who actually work in advocacy but will dispute me on this point. In fact, my former church rolled out the “unwelcome” mat because of my work with a victim and believing what she told me. My friend who is studying to be an attorney works in this realm full time. She tells me “trust AND verify.” I challenge those who naysay “believe the victim” to hear that’s what I mean.